Whereas engineers know about market forces, and that because older programmers can't get jobs so they're willing to work for less than their experience is worth. Score another one for engineers over HR, then.
I think older programmers might be more adaptable than you think. The more languages I've learned (at least to a basic level) the faster I pick up new ones because I recognize stuff I've seen before and only have to pick up the deltas.
You also need the guy's with 25 years experience seeing this shit go wrong to keep them in check.
Yes, but you need the right sort of guy with 25 years of experience. You don't want the guy who says "we tried that: it didn't work." You want the guy who, as somebody above said, says "This is why it didn't work last time. Can we find a way of dealing with that this time?" The other thing the right guy with 25 years experience might be able to do is spot connections: "You want to do that? Hmm, that seems to tie in with this thing I worked on 15 years ago. Maybe some of the ideas from that will help."
It's more than "recognise a pattern in data" (otherwise it would be a patent on regexps, and the patent recogises regexps as a pre-existing technology). It's a patent on recognising the patterns in real time and presenting the user with the option of taking an action based on that pattern.
That distinction, though much maligned here, is actually good. Otherwise the patent would be absurdly broad instead of very specific.
Nope, I've read the first patent and I can't see anything that limits it to phones or mobile devices. "Absurdly broad" looks about right, although IANAL.
Reading the text of the patents, it looks as if the first patent also covers word processors that highlight spelling or grammar errors or automatically detect and hotlink URLs too. That would make MS Office, OpenOffice.org and Libre Office all in breach -- I can't see anything that restricts the patent to mobile devices.
"WIMPs", meaning "Windows, Icons, Mice and Pointers" was in widespread use before MS Windows was released (1985), to the extent that anything to do with computers was in widespread use. Although I note that Windows 1.0 was announced a couple of years before it was released (1983), and although the term "WIMPs" existed even before that announcement (1980) I can't remember how widespread it was by 1983.
Oh, what Microsoft said was right -- just irrelevant. The claim wasn't that the botnet was indestructible, it's that it was practically indestructible. That word makes a lot of difference.
Really, no. I tried andLinux and pretty much nothing worked as it should. I went back to a Windows/Kubuntu dual-boot PDQ. It certainly didn't do anything that made Windows any better (not that I have any major issues with Windows anyway -- I spend most of my time just doing routine office stuff, and OpenOffice.org works just fine under Windows (and with better fonts than on Linux...).
Slashdot Mirror
So the right word isn't "Sophomoric", it's "Kafkaesque".
In what context? Syntax recognition alone wouldn't do it; there has to be a way for the user to select an action based on it.
Whereas engineers know about market forces, and that because older programmers can't get jobs so they're willing to work for less than their experience is worth. Score another one for engineers over HR, then.
Maybe in the larger HR departments.
I think older programmers might be more adaptable than you think. The more languages I've learned (at least to a basic level) the faster I pick up new ones because I recognize stuff I've seen before and only have to pick up the deltas.
You also need the guy's with 25 years experience seeing this shit go wrong to keep them in check.
Yes, but you need the right sort of guy with 25 years of experience. You don't want the guy who says "we tried that: it didn't work." You want the guy who, as somebody above said, says "This is why it didn't work last time. Can we find a way of dealing with that this time?" The other thing the right guy with 25 years experience might be able to do is spot connections: "You want to do that? Hmm, that seems to tie in with this thing I worked on 15 years ago. Maybe some of the ideas from that will help."
To prove what everyone with more than two neurons already knew. Thirty years ago.
Well, that seems to exclude HR departments. But then, we already knew that.
It's more than "recognise a pattern in data" (otherwise it would be a patent on regexps, and the patent recogises regexps as a pre-existing technology). It's a patent on recognising the patterns in real time and presenting the user with the option of taking an action based on that pattern.
BBS != phone.
That distinction, though much maligned here, is actually good. Otherwise the patent would be absurdly broad instead of very specific.
Nope, I've read the first patent and I can't see anything that limits it to phones or mobile devices. "Absurdly broad" looks about right, although IANAL.
Reading the text of the patents, it looks as if the first patent also covers word processors that highlight spelling or grammar errors or automatically detect and hotlink URLs too. That would make MS Office, OpenOffice.org and Libre Office all in breach -- I can't see anything that restricts the patent to mobile devices.
I never disputed that accelerometers can measure orientation, I merely disputed that that was their sole, or even primary, purpose.
Accelerometers exist. Their purpose is to give orientation data.
I think you will find that their purpose is to measure acceleration.
It doesn't matter whether the name is true or not, it's still the name, and distinguishes the People's Republic of China from the Republic of China.
"WIMPs", meaning "Windows, Icons, Mice and Pointers" was in widespread use before MS Windows was released (1985), to the extent that anything to do with computers was in widespread use. Although I note that Windows 1.0 was announced a couple of years before it was released (1983), and although the term "WIMPs" existed even before that announcement (1980) I can't remember how widespread it was by 1983.
That's true. Including with some of those who claim to prize rationality.
And all religious people believe/do those things, do they? Or are you generalizing from a biased sample?
That's probably why they chose to remain anonymous. Rational responses on religion can get a person into trouble around here.
I see you are using slashdot's new postal submission service.
Or, put more simply...
The term "windows" with respect to a part of your house is definitely generic. The term "windows" with respect to an OS is not.
Although as a term for a GUI element it appears to go back to the early 1970s at Xerox PARC.
Oh, what Microsoft said was right -- just irrelevant. The claim wasn't that the botnet was indestructible, it's that it was practically indestructible. That word makes a lot of difference.
Really, no. I tried andLinux and pretty much nothing worked as it should. I went back to a Windows/Kubuntu dual-boot PDQ. It certainly didn't do anything that made Windows any better (not that I have any major issues with Windows anyway -- I spend most of my time just doing routine office stuff, and OpenOffice.org works just fine under Windows (and with better fonts than on Linux...).
Good thing we in the EU (where this is being proposed) don't have to pay any heed to the US congress isn't it?
If only that were true :-(
But the EU has the French, who fill the same role.
It didn't.
Wrong. They gave the last person to find the cache (!) a police caution, which means that they now have a criminal record.